Was Russia a Constitutional Monarchy?

...

of the Duma and the Tsar within the state, for instance; article 4 which states the ’All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme autocratic power’, and article 8 which furthers this point and gives it support by giving all initiative to the Tsar in legislative matters, making the Duma accountable to Nicholas II. Both of these articles manage to completely contradict the guidelines for government established in the October Manifesto because of the fact that it limits the jurisdiction of the only superficial democratic element of state, and reveals the Tsars own ego as this new edict could only be revised on his initiative . The view of Setson-Watson is that not only did the Manifesto falsely give Russia a taste of democracy, the Fundamental Laws in fact strengthened the Russian autocracy as it is essentially a long list of imperatives highlighting the insignificance of any other body in the process of law making and governing. As evidence, Setson-Watson uses the change in electoral law to demonstrate how the Laws of 1906 could be used to uphold autocracy. This decree was instituted after the Tsar feared that the Duma was becoming increasingly Liberal and more opposed to his own political belief, and it effectively restricted the franchise, making it only possible for the elites to be able to pass vote in elections. The success of this is seen in the shift on the spectrum in the Duma due to the reducing of subsequent seats to be won by the Kadets and Social Revolutionaries – from this point the conservatives, supporters of the monarch, and the moderates, held the majority. He argues that this shift in ideology is what allowed Nicholas to remain for so long after the 1905 revolution due to the compliance in government, thus in the struggle between autocracy and party politics promised in the constitution it was the former that triumphed, providing substance to the argument that a full constitutional monarchy was not established.

Another argument that suggests that Russia stayed an autocratic state up until the February Revolution is that repression was used to strengthen Nicholas’ position. Stolypin was chairman of the state council and in this role, he worked to counter revolutionaries. In 1907 alone, roughly 1000 Government officials were assassinated and there were frequent peasant uprisings against unpopular agrarian policies. One way that Stolypin managed to sustain the autarchy was through the elimination of political opponents. He effectively met terror with terror and executed over 3000 who were unsympathetic and convicted many more – leading to the coining of the term ‘Stolypin’s neckties’. However, not all repression has to be explicitly violent – Stolypin convinced the Tsar to allow him to pass reforms without the approval of the Duma, which was against the constitution, in order to pacify opposition from within the peasantry. The need to implement reforms that benefitted the peasanty can be seen in the elections to the First Duma as parties, such as the Kadets, were believed to be a voice for the peasants due to their promotion of the transfer of land. Stolypin’s land reform planned to introduce private land ownership which released individuals from the control of the commune, and he also introduced the Peasant Land Bank where peasants could access loans to establish their own land. Consequently, the peasant saw a gain in their wealth and independence through Stolypin’s reforms, which ran parallel to the stemming of peasant revolts. Figes argues that Stolypin was the last preserver of the autocracy as his reforms led to an increase in the support for Tsarism and a reduce of violent outbreaks in the population, noting that the ‘Tsarist regime’s last hope was wiped out by the assassin’s bullets’. This demonstrates that Russia could not be considered a truly constitutional monarchy as methods of reform were used to ensure that the autocracy ruled strong.

Overall, while some historians evaluate the October Manifesto as the full establishment of a constitutional monarchy due to it setting out guidelines on government and restricting the power of the Tsar through the sharing of legislative power, others argue that this did not mean it was true. The October Manifesto is arguably ambiguous as although it established the constitution, some argue that it was used as measure to give the perception of democracy to pacify opposition, all the while upholding the autocracy as it still gave the Tsar power to veto legislation. On top of this, the edict Fundamental laws work to contradict the manifesto as again, it presents the idea that the tsar reigns all supreme. Repression and reform were also used as a method to preserve the reign of the Romanovs as it successfully quelled revolts. To conclude, Russia cannot be considered a truly constitutional monarchy as it remained a totalitarian state up until 1917.

...